Linux

I test KDE each couple of years: install it on my current OS or in VM, trying to change theme/move panel, get a crash shortly after, then delete it. Even "kde neon" that was supposedly polished distro from devs themselves, crashed within could of minutes in my hands.

Maybe it just my hands, but Gnome never does that.

Gnome. I am often tempted to switch to kde because it is often ahead in terms of adopting new technologies, but gnome is just more comfortable to use. And I was not able to customize kde to have gnome-like workflow.

I used KDE for years only recently switched to Niri, what I can say for KDE is I don't have to dicking around config files and nice features that are missing from other WM/DE like ICC profiles and HDR also very easy to customize. The reason I switch is because KDE getting too good and boring and using Niri reminded me when I use Linux for the first time again (same with switching from Windows to Linux because Windows is boring and barely customizable and cuntpilot)

GNOME visually reminds me of iPadOS (not good) and just hasn't been as intuitive as KDE. Both are usable, KDE just came easier to me.

I've used both pretty extensively (years daily driving each) but these days I just use stock KDE, with maybe a couple little adjustments to the taskbar. I like both. I can adapt to different desktop workflows, GNOME's is good, but I found myself always using plugins to make it work more like a windows desktop. I generally like the KDE suite of default applications a lot more than GNOME's, like Dolphin is just a better file manager than nautilus. And if I'm going to use KDE applications and a windows-styled desktop layout, at that point I might as well just use KDE.

I tried Gnome a few times, last time maybe 3 years ago, but it just is not the right environment for me. It feels strange and everything is so complicated (most likely because I'm not used to it) and it is so limited when it comes to features and customization.

My first graphic OS was GEOS on the C64 back then, followed by Amiga Workbench, then different flavours of Windows. Using Linux with KDE just feels natural, it has the same usage paradigms and flows as all the OS/Environments I used before.

I had to use MacOSX for some time at work and I had the same issues with it that I had with Gnome, everything was a fight, nothing felt right or was at the place where it has to be.

One adapts to me.

The other requires me to adapt to it.

GNOME expects the user to adapt to the workflow its developers have in mind. It's the desktop environment that should adapt to me, not the other way around.

Plus, I love customization and theming. But GTK app developers create angry websites where they try to shame me for it.

GNOME. It's clean, I like it, and I don't feel the need to customize it.

Gnome always felt too basic and minimalist. KDE feels powerful and like I can do anything I want. On KDE I don't ask myself "can i do this?", I ask myself "how do I do this?"

When I got back to Linux some years back, I tried using GNOME because I had had good experiences with GNOME 2. Modern GNOME is awful, terribly opinionated and - in my view - has actual usability issues. Every interaction with the DE felt like pulling teeth and I didn't enjoy it one bit. GNOME Classic was better, but even that never felt quite right. At the time I wanted to use Wayland and therefore had limited options, so for the first time ever I tried Plasma, and I immediately found it to my liking. With only a few small cosmetic tweaks it felt like home. Things made sense to me and everything was where it should be - more or less; nothing's perfect. Since then I've looked at other options, but Plasma usually has one feature or another that alternative desktops lack or struggle with. So for now I'm sticking with Plasma, and I have no real reason to look elsewhere.

To be sure, I don't hate on anyone who prefers GNOME, it's just not my cup of tea. Not by a long shot. Use what works for your use case.

I like gnome, but, switched back to kde because the extensions I needed broke last fedora update.

I love cosmic, but the keyboard focus doesn't always follow into the correct tab, which was also a deal breaker

The only real issue I have with kde, is Google drive integration isn't baked in at the moment. But, I just use the website, and there were plenty of other solutions I could use too

Typically I'll stick with Plasma till they bork it, then switch to GNOME til I get bored and see what's up with Plasma these days. I'll sometimes try some others out, but typically it's those two.

Gnome lost a lot of functions when streamlining, just compare Dolphin to Nautilus, and instead of fighting their vision I went for a DE that works the way I want.
I love information density and easily get hooked on spreadsheet games, I feel as if that is the exact opposite of the Gnome vision.

edit: I prefer Gnome for touch only devices like Microsoft Surface Pro 7 without physical kbm.

The lizard is cute

Gnome 2 was the default when I switched. I stay mostly because of familiarity and inertia. There has to be a really good reason to switch. Maybe soon. KDE implemented workspaces-per-screen. That could be a killer feature that would get me to switch. I loved that when I was running AwesomeWM.

A couple of years ago, I used both of them briefly and GNOME simply provided the more polished experience back then.

In time, I came to dislike the look/design of KDE apps.

So when the time came I wanted to ditch GNOME because I was sick of its extensions ecosystem, I didn't even consider KDE Plasma. Instead, I tried out Sway and eventually settled on COSMIC.

I like KDE because it is super customisable out of the box, and I personally prefer the more contrasty, colourful look of KDE over the more minimal and padded GNOME.

However, if you like GNOME, that's perfectly fine! With GNOME Extensions, you can also customise a lot, far more than Windows or MacOS lets you without sketchy third-party tools. And of course, Cinnamon, XFCE, Cosmic, etc. are all great too.

I like Gnome because it doesn't have a Desktop that I can crowd with Icons and random files. The few times I tried KDE I just didn't really jive with it because the text and icons were super small by default and the whole handling was just..idk, too click-y? Yeah, it can all be adjusted and stuff, but default Gnome is just closer to my preferences than default KDE.

XFCE!

In all serious, while I use XFCE on most personal things, if I was pressed to choose between the big two, I think I'd choose KDE over GNOME; in fact, when I had to loan my younger sibling a laptop recently and that laptop was too old to run Windows 11, I put them on Debian with KDE. I think KDE is also my backup plan if major applications start dropping xorg support before XFCE has implemented sufficient Wayland support, although they seem to be making progress.

Out of the box, KDE tends to be more Windows-like and just better for my workflow in general, while GNOME can just be... weird. Like, I don't quite hate GNOME as much as I used to - I plan on throwing it on an old Surface tablet soon - but like others have said, it's very opinionated and doesn't like customization and whatnot. I also resent GNOME in the sense that they tend to make design designs (such as in GTK 4) that reduce ease of interoperability across different open source desktops.

The opinions of Gnome are not a match for mine.

KDE let's me get really specific on the things I want to, and its well supported.

Just that simple for me!

I use KDE. I found GNOME annoying and extemely opinionated. I also got turned off by it when I asked a question on mastodon like a year ago about an issue I was having with GNOME and an actual GNOME dev replied to me and essentially said I was using the DE wrong. basically I wasn't using it the way the GNOME devs use it.

KDE. I have a specific way I want to work and use my window manager and desktop. KDE allows me to do that OOTB, GNOME doesn't. The other DEs might by their configuration is by opening a file and guessing the options, so I stay away.

KDE looks modern, has features I didnt even know I wanted. Whatever I can think of wanting it's either already there or I make a post on the fourm and its there in a month.

When I had an issue with an update removing something that I liked. I made a post and KDE devs added a toggle so I could keep the functionality I had before. Even though it was a minor thing they could have told me not to worry.

KDE just works. The few things I want to change I can. GNOME by default is further away from what I want and you have to get extensions that break with updates to change anything.

I've been running KDE now, almost exclusively, for almost 15 years. KDE works (by default) in a way similar to the way Windows XP worked in the late 90's - late 2000's. It felt familiar enough that I didn't have to try and figure out most things that I wanted to do. The few things that didn't work the way I wanted ( or felt they should) were easy enough to change. XFCE was similar (had a Windows 95-98 feel) but was not as configurable.

Gnome 2, I rather liked as it had a feel similar to Mac OS 8 from way back when I was in school, however I just never got along with Gnome 3. Everything felt... off. I can use it, Just don't care for it. Same for most other DEs.

Gnome. Sublime flow, very polished. Simply works.

KDE can be OK but it is very overloaded on customization, not nearly as polished, and honestly I dislike that style it upholds. IMHO.

I've been using KDE for about a decade now. It's polished, and works well. Plus, it's also highly customizable, so I've never had a reason to switch.

Gnome is simple and clean. It gets out of my way and functions the way I expect a modern DE to function.

KDE has wobbly windows. Gnome needs an extension. Easy choice.

I needed a desktop environment with a UI that wasn't intended to be hidden away. Or a desktop that wasn't challenging the way that I intend to work with the computer.

KDE may be boring and it may not challenge any paradigms. But it works well and stays out of the way.

First, I haven't used gnome in probably 15 years, so I can't give a fair comparison, but I've grown with kde over the last 3.

My opinion is that it's always worked for me, and is decently customizable. I couldn't use Wayland for the first 4+ months due to conflicts with my Nvidia card, but kde 6 (I think 6) fixed all of my issues.

On new Linux serious, I don't install the full kde suite, because I have other apps I prefer like alacrity instead on konsole. This keeps it lighter but with all of the other DE controls.

Also, I've not heard a bad thing of the kde dev team, but I have about gnome. I can't cite specifics, but I know I've read some bad stuff.

You can always install both DEs and try both out and determine which is best for you.

I got tired of "customizing" everything and just wanted to get work done. GNOME is the default on many distros, so I learned the intended workflow instead of fighting it. Now I can just install a distro and be productive immediately instead of spending time tweaking things.

Gnome employs Jeremy Bicha as a person convicted of sexual battery of a minor and as far as we know never notified other employees especially at conventions or other employee gatherings.

I'll stick with KDE

The way I use a computer changes frequently, having an overly opinionated desktop environment makes it feel like it's not my computer. I like my computer to work for me at my current time and I don't mind the inconvenience of modifying settings to get there. I would rather defaults just work but I'm not asking my computer to read my mind. I've settled with KDE but I often use other window managers and desktop environments. Last week I used twm for the whole week. Other than scaling issues it was fine.